Level-0 characters and Weapons Training

Are you new to DCC? Are you loaded down with questions to ask before you begin play? Explore this section for answers and insights -- and ask your own questions -- about getting started with the Dungeon Crawl Classics Roleplaying Game...

Moderators: DJ LaBoss, finarvyn, michaelcurtis, Harley Stroh

Post Reply
CapnZapp
Hard-Bitten Adventurer
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:00 am
FLGS: Book

Level-0 characters and Weapons Training

Post by CapnZapp »

"All 0-level characters are trained in the one weapon they
possess from their former occupation."

"Generally, using a weapon without training imposes an attack
penalty. However, this penalty is waived for 0-level
characters."

"It is assumed that their naturally poor combat
abilities reflect equal incompetence with the martial use of
all weapons. (Not to mention that in playtests, applying
the attack penalty increases the 0-level death rate to absurd
proportions.)"

Can someone explain this. Give insight into the developers mind here?

To me it appears that players will have their level-0 characters drop their trained d4 weapons as soon as they can find, purchase or steal a better weapon (such as a Longsword). While I completely understand that applying the "attack penalty" of being reduced to a d10 instead of a d20 would completely kill off that character's survival chances...

... why aren't less catastrophic attack penalties ever discussed?!

I mean, being reduced to a d10 sounds completely unplayable, as in very close to "no you can't use that". Theoretically it isn't a firm prohibition, but as these playtests show, in practice it really is. I would have thought a -2 penalty for untrained use, or perhaps more in the style of DCC, reducing the d20 to a d16, would suffice. It would mean the choice between your "trowel (as dagger)" and a handaxe, say, or a spear would be actually an interesting one.

Being asked to roll a d20 for d4 damage, or a d10 for a d8 damage, is no real choice. That much everybody seems to agree on. But why then skip the idea of a penalty altogether, instead of, you know, realizing the penalty is far too drastic, and reducing it?! My question is: why is this made out to be a binary choice: to keep the draconian untrained usage penalty or not use it at all? Why is the game still (in its 8th edition) not considering that maybe the penalty is unplayably high and that something more moderate would fix all problems including "applying the attack penalty increases the 0-level death rate to absurd proportions".

I honestly don't get it. I do realize there must be a reason, since the rules remain so harsh. Yet, I cannot see it. So I am respectfully asking y'all - what am I missing here?
User avatar
Raven_Crowking
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 3159
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:41 am
FLGS: The Sword & Board
Contact:

Re: Level-0 characters and Weapons Training

Post by Raven_Crowking »

Check page 78. Using an untrained weapon is a -1d penalty, so 1d16 not 1d10.

Note also that, regardless of the class you choose, you are always considered trained in the last funnel weapon you used. So if Sue picks up a longbow, and then becomes a wizard, she is trained in the longbow.
SoBH pbp:

Cathbad the Meek (herbalist Wizard 1): AC 9; 4 hp; S 7, A 7, St 10, P 17, I 13, L 8; Neutral; Club, herbs, 50' rope, 50 cp; -1 to melee attack rolls. Hideous scar.
CapnZapp
Hard-Bitten Adventurer
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:00 am
FLGS: Book

Re: Level-0 characters and Weapons Training

Post by CapnZapp »

Raven_Crowking wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:31 am Check page 78. Using an untrained weapon is a -1d penalty, so 1d16 not 1d10.
Hmm. so untrained weapon usage is different from untrained usage in general. How unfortunate.

While this is good, I guess my question remains: why have "untrained = d10" anywhere at all?

Or rather, don't answer that. I realize the official game will not change based on our conversation, so I will simply have to live with the discrepancy. At least: thank you for pointing this out to me.
Note also that, regardless of the class you choose, you are always considered trained in the last funnel weapon you used. So if Sue picks up a longbow, and then becomes a wizard, she is trained in the longbow.
I guess you're referring to "If a 0-level character handles multiple weapons over his career, he is considered trained in the last weapon he fought with."

When I read that, I honestly thought there would be some criteria for how long you need to use the weapon before you are considered trained... and then forgot about it.

Now it seems there are two somewhat boggling issues.

Why assign people various occupational weapon proficiences if
1) you can simply start bashing with another weapon and promptly forget the first one...
2) ...and it doesn't matter anyway since you're supposed to get your "full" d20 for every weapon regardless?!

I can't say I have come any close to understanding why the game bothers with assigning an initial proficiency when the random assortment of weapons found during an adventure is the only deciding factor regardless.

It would seem vastly more logical to say something along the lines of:
a) your initial random occupational weapon training never goes away, and this is the proficiency you bring with you into your class at level 1
b) you do get the standard untrained penalty when using other weapons...
c) ...but for one encounter only. Once you have survived one encounter where you make at least one attack (hit or miss) with a different weapon, you can now waive the penalty for that weapon during the remainder of your time at level 0.

This way, you do gain a motivation to keep the weapon you start with, while still allowing you to "upgrade" or simply use something else if you lose your first weapon. What you can't do, however, is meta-game it, by asking to hold a longbow simply because you plan to level up as a wizard.

Anyway, thanks again for your reply.
User avatar
Raven_Crowking
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 3159
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:41 am
FLGS: The Sword & Board
Contact:

Re: Level-0 characters and Weapons Training

Post by Raven_Crowking »

CapnZapp wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:08 pm
Raven_Crowking wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:31 am Check page 78. Using an untrained weapon is a -1d penalty, so 1d16 not 1d10.
Hmm. so untrained weapon usage is different from untrained usage in general. How unfortunate.
Unfortunate how? Skill checks and attack rolls follow different rules.

* There are no fumbles or crits with skills.
* A natural 1 is not necessarily a failure with a skill, nor a natural 20 a success.
* The DC 5/10/15/20 baseline for skills is very different from the baseline for AC.
While this is good, I guess my question remains: why have "untrained = d10" anywhere at all?
Because it works very, very well with skill checks. Actually, better than very, very well. It is a piece of brilliance that, in play, really means that the stupid sage is still more likely to know sage-stuff than a clever ditch-digger.
Now it seems there are two somewhat boggling issues.

Why assign people various occupational weapon proficiences if
1) you can simply start bashing with another weapon and promptly forget the first one...
2) ...and it doesn't matter anyway since you're supposed to get your "full" d20 for every weapon regardless?!
Please do not take this as snark, but have you actually tried playing the game as written? Your peasant, more likely than not, starts with no more than 5d12 cp, averaging at about 3 sp worth of coin. That gongfarmer cannot simply bash about with anything, because they cannot afford to get anything. What is available is very much what the judge has made available in the funnel adventure.

If Bob the Beadle manages to kill a tough beastman and claim its axe, and then goes on to become a cleric, there is a good reason why that axe is part of Bob the Cleric's gear. It is, literally, part of his backstory through play. Swords and bows and axes are not usually just lying around; that crappy weapon the occupation table assigns to a PC is the best they can do, and is the thin edge between that PC and a gruesome death.

Either way, the only really critical rule is found on page 312 of the core rulebook.
SoBH pbp:

Cathbad the Meek (herbalist Wizard 1): AC 9; 4 hp; S 7, A 7, St 10, P 17, I 13, L 8; Neutral; Club, herbs, 50' rope, 50 cp; -1 to melee attack rolls. Hideous scar.
CapnZapp
Hard-Bitten Adventurer
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:00 am
FLGS: Book

Re: Level-0 characters and Weapons Training

Post by CapnZapp »

Raven_Crowking wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:02 pm Unfortunate how? Skill checks and attack rolls follow different rules.

* There are no fumbles or crits with skills.
* A natural 1 is not necessarily a failure with a skill, nor a natural 20 a success.
* The DC 5/10/15/20 baseline for skills is very different from the baseline for AC.

I'm sorry. To me your response appears defensive, and there should be no need.

However, explaining "it's different because other rules are different" is no real explanation.

Why do skill checks and attack rules follow different rules? What made the designers diverge them? The underlying d20 game engine is unified, and complication for complication's sake is not a benefit. Rolling a d10 is just hopeless unless you have a very high score modifier, even if the DC is "only" 10. It means "trained" has a baseline of 50% while "untrained" has only 5%. That to me reeks of old school D&D where skills just aren't a thing and you secretly want a binary system but provide a fig-leaf of a d10 so you can claim the system isn't primitive like that at all, no siree.
While this is good, I guess my question remains: why have "untrained = d10" anywhere at all?
Because it works very, very well with skill checks. Actually, better than very, very well. It is a piece of brilliance that, in play, really means that the stupid sage is still more likely to know sage-stuff than a clever ditch-digger.
You're right I'm new to DCC. If untrained meant rolling a d16 everywhere (instead of a d20) that would make sense. Being asked to roll a d10 reduces untrained use to the easiest checks (skipping DC 5) only, and even then with a huge risk of failure. Not sure I see the brilliance of that.

I'm not saying there can't be a reason. I'm, unfortunately, not saying your reply helps explain it either.
Please do not take this as snark, but have you actually tried playing the game as written? Your peasant, more likely than not, starts with no more than 5d12 cp, averaging at about 3 sp worth of coin. That gongfarmer cannot simply bash about with anything, because they cannot afford to get anything. What is available is very much what the judge has made available in the funnel adventure.
Have you considered the scenario where one player rolls up a soldier or something equipped with a good weapon, such as a Longsword? It's a good chance this character isn't really cut out for swordplay. But the baker right behind her might be. And so everybody wishes Soldier Sue dead so they can instantly pick up her nice d8 weapon and use it without penalty or delay - or worse, hand it around at the end of the adventure so everybody surviving the final challenge gets Longsword as their bonus proficiency.

If I can see this, surely you can too.

I am *not* saying it has to go down like this. But you haven't really provided any compelling arguments why the rules does not even *try* preventing cheese like this.
If Bob the Beadle manages to kill a tough beastman and claim its axe, and then goes on to become a cleric, there is a good reason why that axe is part of Bob the Cleric's gear. It is, literally, part of his backstory through play. Swords and bows and axes are not usually just lying around; that crappy weapon the occupation table assigns to a PC is the best they can do, and is the thin edge between that PC and a gruesome death.
Then say that! :) In the rules, I mean! "Heroes are forged through the experience of lethal combat. If you and your actions helped defeat a foe, you may claim its weapon as your own. From now on you may wield it, permanently shifting your weapons-training away from your occupational weapon."

This means the options remain just as flexible for the scenario you paint, while still closing the door on "I pick Sue's longsword from her cold dead body and proceed to instantly wield it as if my Baker occupation's 'rolling pin (as club)' was just a bad dream".
Either way, the only really critical rule is found on page 312 of the core rulebook.
Rule 0 is a good rule to have. Just that it's not constructive during rules improvement discussions. At most it there provides an excuse to not change stuff, without actually having to defend/explain/justify your existing rules.

Cheers
User avatar
Raven_Crowking
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 3159
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:41 am
FLGS: The Sword & Board
Contact:

Re: Level-0 characters and Weapons Training

Post by Raven_Crowking »

CapnZapp wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:52 amHowever, explaining "it's different because other rules are different" is no real explanation.

Why do skill checks and attack rules follow different rules? What made the designers diverge them? The underlying d20 game engine is unified, and complication for complication's sake is not a benefit. Rolling a d10 is just hopeless unless you have a very high score modifier, even if the DC is "only" 10. It means "trained" has a baseline of 50% while "untrained" has only 5%. That to me reeks of old school D&D where skills just aren't a thing and you secretly want a binary system but provide a fig-leaf of a d10 so you can claim the system isn't primitive like that at all, no siree.
Okay, clearly I was unclear, because I said more than "it's different because other rules are different". It is different because, in play, it works very, very well.

The idea that "skills" and "combat" should be a unified experience is, indeed, a concept from the d20 system. It just isn't the best expression of how skills should work in a game. I highly recommend that you actually try the skill system, because it is clear that you don't "get" it right now. No system is going to be the best fit for every player or GM, but right now you are simply not grokking it.

DCC uses a base skill difficulty of DC 5/10/15/20. Normal stuff does not require a roll. If you are a baker, you do not need to roll to make a loaf of bread. From the rules (page 66):
DC 5 tasks are child’s play. Typically, these minor challenges aren’t rolled unless there is a consequence for failure. Example: walking on a four-foot-wide castle wall requires no check, but walking a four-foot-wide bridge across a yawning chasm does, as there is a significant consequence to failure
for this easy task.

DC 10 tasks are a man’s deed. The weak and unskilled could not likely achieve these tasks. Example: kicking down a door, scaling a stone wall, or hearing the approach of a cautious footpad.

DC 15 tasks are feats of derring-do. It takes someone special to accomplish these tasks. Examples: leaping the gap between two city roofs, hurling a log at an oncoming bear, or grabbing a pouch lashed to the saddle of a galloping stallion.

DC 20 tasks are a hero’s work. Only the most super-human characters attempt and succeed at these tasks.
So, yes, it is generally hopeless for your forester to perform a super-human task of baking a cake, just as your baker is not going to follow tracks like Aragorn. But, your forester will succeed on following average tracks, even under pressure, 80% of the time, and your baker will be able to do so 60% of the time. When those tracks get harder to follow, the forester is still doing so 55% of the time, but the baker has dropped down to 5%.

In one fell swoop, a baker is not a forester, and a forester is not a baker.

But there is more. The baker could have a bonus of up to +3 on that check, raising his chance of success to 20%, and the forester could have a -3, lowering her chance to 40%. Even at the extremes, occupation matters to skills, but native ability can play a serious part. That baker is still never going to follow tracks that would take someone special to follow. And the inept forester is never going to be super-human at following tracks.

But there is more. In this game, PCs can expend Luck to succeed where otherwise they might have failed. And they get to roll the dice first, so the baker knows whether or not he should have a lucky break that allows him to pick up the trail.

But, again, there is more. The baker has become a Thief, and not only does his Luck regenerate over time, but he gets to roll a Luck Die every time he expends it. At first level, spending 3 points of Luck means a +3d3 bonus to the roll; at 10th level that is a +3d16 bonus. Cugel the Clever really has an opportunity to be clever.

But, again, there is more. Because the DCs remain static throughout the PCs' careers, the Baker actually does get better over time at thief skills. The DCs do not continue to rise based on PC level. The numbers bloat endemic to the d20 System as a whole simply fails to appear.

But, yet again, there is more. If the baker is hanging out with a Lucky Halfling, that halfling can also expend Luck to help the baker succeed in tasks.

And, yet again, there is more. If the forester decides that she really, really wants to learn how to bake cakes, she can have her character learn how to do so. Because she starts with a d10 for those skill checks does not mean she must accept that as her unchanging fate. The game has a dice chain which can be used to indicate her progress in baking, and a Quest For It directive that states outright that PCs can (and should) find ways to develop their characters as they wish.

In short, while the system is deceptively simple, it accomplishes what the d20 System (in general) does not: Characters are actually differentiated based on their backgrounds, but characters can still grow despite this.

Dang it, one more thing: Armor check penalties. These can make some checks all but impossible for the untrained. You can get Lucky. You can take off your armor. Or you can get your group's expert to do it.

It is worth trying. If you want to experience a game where Appendix N-type characters go on Appendix N-type adventures, this is it. If that isn't your bag, that's cool. From the tone of your posts, I really can't tell if you don't understand how/why the system works (and trying it should clear that up, as you too will "go up the dice chain" making your "DCC system" skill checks) or are trying to just complain that it is not something else.

It is not something else.

But I have been running games since 1979, and I can say that I have never seen a skill system that worked even half as well in actual play. YMMV.
SoBH pbp:

Cathbad the Meek (herbalist Wizard 1): AC 9; 4 hp; S 7, A 7, St 10, P 17, I 13, L 8; Neutral; Club, herbs, 50' rope, 50 cp; -1 to melee attack rolls. Hideous scar.
User avatar
Raven_Crowking
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 3159
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:41 am
FLGS: The Sword & Board
Contact:

Re: Level-0 characters and Weapons Training

Post by Raven_Crowking »

CapnZapp wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:52 am
I'm sorry. To me your response appears defensive, and there should be no need.[/quote]

Sorry if it comes across that way. I am very enthusiastic about this system!

I am going to be travelling for a week, but when I return if you wanted to, I would be more than happy to example the system for you so that you have some experience of it from the other side of the screen. There are a lot to this game that might not seem obvious just by reading the rulebook.

(The second best skill system I have come across is in the Aliens game, which gives you a reason to act like the characters in the films. I also tend to think that the Betrayal at the House on the Hill game has a neat skill system that would be adaptable to an rpg....but using that system for combat would be harsh!)
SoBH pbp:

Cathbad the Meek (herbalist Wizard 1): AC 9; 4 hp; S 7, A 7, St 10, P 17, I 13, L 8; Neutral; Club, herbs, 50' rope, 50 cp; -1 to melee attack rolls. Hideous scar.
User avatar
qstor
Wild-Eyed Zealot
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 5:03 am
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Level-0 characters and Weapons Training

Post by qstor »

Raven_Crowking wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:02 pm That gongfarmer cannot simply bash about with anything, because they cannot afford to get anything. What is available is very much what the judge has made available in the funnel adventure.

If Bob the Beadle manages to kill a tough beastman and claim its axe, and then goes on to become a cleric, there is a good reason why that axe is part of Bob the Cleric's gear. It is, literally, part of his backstory through play. Swords and bows and axes are not usually just lying around; that crappy weapon the occupation table assigns to a PC is the best they can do, and is the thin edge between that PC and a gruesome death.
^ this.

I think it's "tough" enough for a 0 level PC with maybe an AC of 10 and a few copper pieces without the added to hit penalty. Just my two coppers...
"I waste it with my Hackmaster +12" Dave KODT

Twitter: @qstor2
CapnZapp
Hard-Bitten Adventurer
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:00 am
FLGS: Book

Re: Level-0 characters and Weapons Training

Post by CapnZapp »

qstor wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:59 am I think it's "tough" enough for a 0 level PC with maybe an AC of 10 and a few copper pieces without the added to hit penalty. Just my two coppers...
I completely agree with this.

That still is no reason though to open up cheese like everybody getting longsword as their level 0 weapons training..

In fact, I'm going to allow Warriors and Clerics a d8 damage die for the weapon their god or their occupation dictates.

I'd much rather see a Warrior with a d8 ladle (because she once was a Soup-Stirrer) than the player feeling the need to minmax to the "best" weapons. It doesn't matter after all; either you go two-handed weapons or your pitchfork or butcher's cleaver or sharpened quill (as dagger) or what-have-you will do very nicely indeed. :)
Post Reply

Return to “DCC College - New Judges Start Here”